Behaviour issues in Leeds

[bluejak]

I heard about this one! A certain "well-known" player was involved: his attitude can be ... errr ... tricky. :lol: He was South.

 

North made a bid. The following conversation ensued:

 

East: "Does that show four spades?"

South: "No"

East: "Can she have four spades?"

South: "No"

East: "Can she have four spades and four diamonds?"

South: "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"

 

East now walked out and refused to play! :D

[aguahombre]

Bye!

 

South has a sense of humor; East might have listened to the answers to the first two questions before asking the third one, but some people would rather just listen to themselves talking.

 

East won't do it again in that club.

[gordontd]

East's behaviour seems more troublesome than South's.

[BunnyGo]

East's behaviour seems more troublesome than South's.

 

Second.

 

I can appreciate how the words that South is quoted as saying could be nasty or humorous depending on the tone of voice. Either way, I still think East was the less well behaved of the two.

[Vampyr]

East's behaviour seems more troublesome than South's.

 

Yes, I had only skimmed the first part of the post, and assumed that the behaviour problem was East's.

[Vampyr]

A certain "well-known" player was involved: his attitude can be ... errr ... tricky. :lol:

 

 

It's interesting that a person can acquire a bad reputation, after which any trouble in his vicinity is assumed to be his fault. If South had been named, I wonder if some of us would have said, "Oh, yeah, well that guy is a real arsehole".

[Cyberyeti]

E's behaviour is out of order and borders on harrassment, and I have no problem with south's in this case. Penalise E for walking out, but at least talk to him/her (it's possible there's previous history and this refers back to a specific event). When E comes back, eye any spade lead from W with suspicion.

[MickyB]

Agree that the conversation as reported puts East in a poor light; However, this isn't the full story, and I am not sure that the part of the conversation reported above is accurate.

[AlexJonson]

Maybe we need an accurate account, especially if various people know who was involved (and maybe what happened) and especially if 'Leeds' indicates something other than a provincial club in terms of the event.

[mrdct]

There isn't enough information.

 

What was the auction?

 

What were the pre-alerts?

 

What were the table alerts and/or announcements?

 

What was the initial explanation given by South of the bid in question?

 

On the face of it, East's second question is entirely reasonable as there are many bids which don't show 4 spades but also don't deny 4♠. The third question may well be reasonable also as I have certainly come across the situation where people play 1♣:1♠ as no major unless it's a M-♦ 4-5 GF hand and I've seen players omit that fairly unlikely scenario from their initial explanation and only mention it if responder later a bid a new M.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me likely that had East asked, for his first question, "please explain your auction", most of the problem here would have been alleviated (or South would more clearly have been in the wrong).

 

The one thing you do not do, IMO, is just up and leave in the middle of the game.

[mrdct]

The one thing you do not do, IMO, is just up and leave in the middle of the game.

I could not agree more and East is most definately the player worthy of the most serious sanction; however one should also not make smart-arse comments when in all likelihood it's one's own fault for not properly explaining what the questioned bid meant in the first instance. It is clear that there were aspects of South's explanation and subsequent "nos" that East did not fully understand so South needs to work out how he can explain himself better.

[MickyB]

I have spoken to a player who was at the table, and understand that the player designated "South" in the OP had made several such remarks that were perceived as aggressive by East-West but humourous by North. The comment in the OP just happened to be the last one made before the TD was called. East was upset by South and by the TD's handling of the situation; it was after this that he walked out, but he was persuaded to return, at least partly by West.

 

This is not intended to be a full account of events.

[Bbradley62]

... however one should also not make smart-arse comments when in all likelihood it's one's own fault for not properly explaining what the questioned bid meant in the first instance...

There is nothing in the story we've been told to indicate that South has in any way failed to make a proper explanation. If the exchange really did include:

East: "Can she have four spades?"

South: "No"

East: "Can she have four spades and four diamonds?"

then East earned the smart-ass response.

[aguahombre]

True, Bradley. It is unfortunate when we are only given part of the story (but not the fault of the OP in this case); worse yet when we speculate that what we are given is false and then decide differently based on our own speculations.

 

Your post used "if" and stuck to what we were told. Good job.

[Vampyr]

It is unfortunate when we are only given part of the story (but not the fault of the OP in this case);

 

No? If there was a lot more to the story then I don't think the OP should have been posted.

[mrdct]

No? If there was a lot more to the story tehn I don't think the OP should have been posted.

I agree. The OP should be reported to the moderators.

 

On the balance of probabilities, this looks to me like a clear breach of Law 74A2 on the part of South, so I'd have a look at invoking Law 91A and suspending him for the remainder of session; particularly if it's possible to reorganise the movement.

[BunnyGo]

I agree. The OP should be reported to the moderators.

 

On the balance of probabilities, this looks to me like a clear breach of Law 74A2 on the part of South, so I'd have a look at invoking Law 91A and suspending him for the remainder of session; particularly if it's possible to reorganise the movement.

 

Really? The OP made a post without naming anyone that told a story that allowed us to discuss behavior based on that story.

 

If there is a different story, or more complete one, we can discuss the behavior in those variations. I see nothing inherently wrong with posting a story about anonymous players.

[RMB1]

Really? The OP made a post without naming anyone that told a story that allowed us to discuss behavior based on that story.

 

But lots of people who were there would know who East was if East walked out and refused to play; and at least one person who was not there (MickyB was playing in Manchester that day) know about the incident.

[BunnyGo]

But lots of people who were there would know who East was if East walked out and refused to play; and at least one person who was not there (MickyB was playing in Manchester that day) know about the incident.

 

Fair enough.

[JohnJP]

Well, I was west. I realise that people might want the full story..........which I'm not going to give, as this may not be the end of the matter. What I will clarify is that a) my partner never walked.............he stood to walk but was persuaded to remain and finish the match and b) the account you have been given is very incomplete, and the snippet you have been given is a distortion at best, and quite inaccurate.

[Trinidad]

I am puzzled why the OP was posted to begin with.

 

I would start a thread if:

- I have a question

- I want to start a discussion

- I want to share a story that I think might be educating or entertaining to others

 

This is not a question, nor the start of a discussion. At best it seems to be a biased story that is neither educating nor entertaining. At worst it is dumb gossip. Either way, posting this is only sad and doesn't do bridge any favors.

 

Rik

[mrdct]

Posters also need to bear in mind that even when they try to de-identify the individuals involved in a case, bridge is a very small world and it's relatively easy to work out who the subjects are.

[Cascade]

But lots of people who were there would know who East was if East walked out and refused to play; and at least one person who was not there (MickyB was playing in Manchester that day) know about the incident.

 

So what. If he walked out then he walked out. If he didn't (as another post has subsequently suggested) then he didn't.

 

It is interesting to consider such situations even if the facts are not 100% - they seldom are.

 

We still get a general feeling given the 'facts' as presented who others think was out of line.

[mrdct]

So what. If he walked out then he walked out. If he didn't (as another post has subsequently suggested) then he didn't.

 

It is interesting to consider such situations even if the facts are not 100% - they seldom are.

 

We still get a general feeling given the 'facts' as presented who others think was out of line.

The problem is that the OP could be read as East asking stupid questions and getting a harmless sarcastic remark in reply to which he had a serious over-reaction; whereas the emerging facts paint quite a different picture as to what actually happened. When we are talking about a real-life case where the identities of the individuals are widely known and/or easily discoverable, it's quite important that "facts" be presented in an unbiased and complete manner. The hand, the auction, the system, the alerts, the earlier questions and the earlier explanations are all required to properly discuss how a TD ought to handle this sort of situation.

 

I'm still keen to see the actual hand and the auction.